Theseconsiderationswill，webelieve，sufficientlyexplainthecuriouscircumstancethat，whileweknowtheChristofdogmasointimately，weknowtheJesusofhistorysoslightly。TheliteratureofearlyChristianityenablesustotracewithtolerablecompletenesstheprogressofopinionconcerningthenatureofJesus，fromthetimeofPaul’searlymissionstothetimeoftheNiceneCouncil；butupontheactualwordsanddeedsofJesusitthrowsaveryunsteadylight。Thedogmaticpurposeeverywhereobscuresthehistoricbasis。
ThissamedogmaticprepossessionwhichhasrenderedthedataforabiographyofJesussoscantyanduntrustworthy，hasalsountilcomparativelyrecenttimespreventedanyunbiassedcriticalexaminationofsuchdataasweactuallypossess。PrevioustotheeighteenthcenturyanyattempttodealwiththelifeofJesusuponpurelyhistoricalmethodswouldhavebeennotonlycontemnedasirrational，butstigmatizedasimpious。Andevenintheeighteenthcentury，thosewriterswhohadbecomewhollyemancipatedfromecclesiastictraditionweresodestituteofallhistoricsympathyandsounskilledinscientificmethodsofcriticism，thattheyutterlyfailedtocomprehendtherequirementsoftheproblem。Theiraimswereinthemainpolemic，nothistorical。TheythoughtmoreofoverthrowingcurrentdogmasthanofimpartiallyexaminingtheearliestChristianliteraturewithaviewofelicitingitshistoriccontents；and，accordingly，theyaccomplishedbutlittle。Twobrilliantexceptionsmust，however，benoticed。Spinoza，intheseventeenthcentury，andLessing，intheeighteenth，weremenfarinadvanceoftheirage。
Theyarethefathersofmodernhistoricalcriticism；andtoLessinginparticular，withhisenormouseruditionandincomparablesagacity，belongsthehonourofinitiatingthatmethodofinquirywhich，inthehandsoftheso-calledTubingenSchool，hasledtosuchstrikingandvaluableconclusionsconcerning，theageandcharacterofalltheNewTestamentliterature。ButitwaslongbeforeanyonecouldbefoundfittobendthebowwhichLessingandSpinozahadwielded。Asuccessionofablescholars——Semler，Eichhorn，Paulus，SchleiermacherBretschneider，andDeWette——wererequiredtoexamine，withGermanpatienceandaccuracy，thedetailsofthesubject，andtopropoundvariousuntenablehypotheses，beforesuchaworkcouldbeperformedasthatofStrauss。The“LifeofJesus，“publishedbyStrausswhenonlytwenty-sixyearsofage，isoneofthemonumentalworksofthenineteenthcentury，worthytorank，asahistoricaleffort，alongwithsuchbooksasNiebuhr’s“HistoryofRome，“Wolf’s“Prolegomena，“orBentley’s“DissertationsonPhalaris。“Itinstantlysupersededandrenderedantiquatedeverythingwhichhadprecededit；norhasanyworkonearlyChristianitybeenwritteninGermanyforthepastthirtyyearswhichhasnotbeendominatedbytherecollectionofthatmarvellousbook。Nevertheless，thelaboursofanothergenerationofscholarshavecarriedourknowledgeoftheNewTestamentliteraturefarbeyondthepointwhichithadreachedwhenStraussfirstwrote。AtthattimethedatesofbutfewoftheNewTestamentwritingshadbeenfixedwithanyapproachtocertainty；
theageandcharacterofthefourthgospel，thegenuinenessofthePaulineepistles，eventhemutualrelationsofthethreesynoptics，werestillundetermined；and，asanatural。resultofthisuncertainty，theprogressofdogmaduringthefirstcenturywasillunderstood。AtthepresentdayitisimpossibletoreadtheearlyworkofStrausswithoutbeingimpressedwiththenecessityofobtainingpositivedataastotheoriginanddogmaticcharacteroftheNewTestamentwritings，beforeattemptingtoreachanyconclusionsastotheprobablecareerofJesus。ThesepositivedataweowetothegeniusanddiligenceoftheTubingenSchool，and，aboveall，toitsfounder，FerdinandChristianBaur。BeginningwiththeepistlesofPaul，ofwhichhedistinguishedfourasgenuine，BaurgraduallyworkedhiswaythroughtheentireNewTestamentcollection，detecting——withthatinspiredinsightwhichonlyunflinchingdiligencecanimparttooriginalgenius——theageatwhicheachbookwaswritten，andthecircumstanceswhichcalleditforth。TogiveanyaccountofBaur’sdetailedconclusions，orofthemethodbywhichhereachedthem，wouldrequireavolume。TheyareveryscantilypresentedinMr。Mackay’sworkonthe“TubingenSchoolanditsAntecedents，“
towhichwemayreferthereaderdesirousoffurtherinformation。